According to this blog, Akka seems better /close performance when compared to Erlang.<br><br><a href="http://letitcrash.com/post/14783691760/akka-vs-erlang">http://letitcrash.com/post/14783691760/akka-vs-erlang</a><br><br>
".... Erlang R14B04 did <strong>1 million</strong> messages per second while Akka 2.0-SNAPSHOT did <strong>2.1 million</strong> per second..."<br><br>this one also has some interesting results:<br> <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/112820434312193778084/posts/HdKFx4VQtJj">https://plus.google.com/u/0/112820434312193778084/posts/HdKFx4VQtJj</a><br>
<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Miles Fidelman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net">mfidelman@meetinghouse.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Maybe this is obvious, but seems to me that running a concurrency engine on top of a JVM just adds a layer of unnecessary overhead.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Ngoc Dao wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The result of Erlang vs Java is obvious.<br>
But how about Erlang vs Scala (with Akka, <a href="http://akka.io/" target="_blank">http://akka.io/</a>)?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Joe pointed to a very important fact, Java/J2ee is industry (so is c# and<br>
.net) but Erlnag is a language.<br>
Each time I have to look at a WSDL or XML schema to fix a production bug<br>
in a J2ee application is I ask why Erlang shouldn't be industry? Just<br>
compare the simplicity and in particular the beauty of distributed Erlang<br>
with awkwardness of webservice / JMS communications. Quite frankly folks,<br>
they are really ugly! So are their .net siblings. This is not because I love<br>
Erlang, I just follow the same sense of beauty that guided mathematicians<br>
and theoretical physicists for years when they come up with innovative<br>
ideas. As Hardy used to say "There is no place for ugly mathematics". Why IT<br>
is missing (or ignoring) such a sense? I don't think what we do is more<br>
abstract than pure math (Manifold theory for instance). Maybe because IT is<br>
too young but still we need to start sometime from somewhere.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Shahrdad<br>
</blockquote>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
erlang-questions mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org" target="_blank">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
<a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br></div></div><div class="im HOEnZb">
-- <br>
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.<br>
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra<br>
<br>
<br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
erlang-questions mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org" target="_blank">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
<a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>